Ancient Greek culture: adoption?

[Michael Zwingli]

This is a question relating to Ancient Greek culture, which recently occurred to me.

Adoption into a gens was quite a momentous practice in Latin culture from the days of the kingdom right through to the end of the empire. It was often used to shore up the position of, or otherwise strengthen a gens, which represented the most important unit in Roman society. Was adoption similarly practiced in ancient Greece as well? If so, did it have the same importance as in Roman society?

 

[CSGD]

The theme of adoption was made popular, as it were, by some remarkable Roman examples, but it was a regular practice in all of Ancient history and also in Greece from what I gather.

Actually, even in Rome, every child birth was more or less an act of adoption. The father actually had to pick up a new child born by his wife to accept it as one of his kin ... after all, you can't always tell if you actually are the father ... or sometimes you can even tell you aren't. You still adopted it as one of yours by picking it up.

 

[Michael Zwingli]

...after all, you can't always tell if you actually are the father...

Yes, I suppose that this was a real problem for the mental health of men in the days before DNA analysis and Jerry Springer! The Jews even codified this concern in Halakhic rules for determining who may be considered to be "born Jewish" (it was solely determined by whether the mother was Jewish or not).

 

[CSGD]

mater semper certa

 

[Gregorius Textor]

I cannot help thinking that whenever and wherever some families cannot care for the children they have, and other families cannot have the children they want to care for, adoption is going to be a happy event, a "momentous practice" in any society that is not seriously morally damaged.

 

[Michael Zwingli]

I cannot help thinking that whenever and wherever some families cannot care for the children they have, and other families cannot have the children they want to care for, adoption is going to be a happy event, a "momentous practice" in any society that is not seriously morally damaged.

Yes, undoubtedly so. However, in Roman culture, as I am sure you are aware, the practice had meanings and purposes completely unrelated to the welfare of children (not that this was not a concern of Romans as well). It was often done to strengthen and/or consolidate the social position of a gens, and the adoptee, who in such cases took on the nomen gentilicum, and thenceforth represented his adoptive gens rather than his birth "family", was often a young adult at the time.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Actually, I was not fully aware of that, although I should have at least vaguely understood it from your initial post, Michael.

A couple of things puzzle me about this. To enhance the status of the gens adopting, the person adopted would have to be of high status, I think. But then it seems odd for the person being adopted (or his family) to agree to his being adopted into a gens of, presumably, lower status. What would motivate this on his, or their, part? Can you explain?

 

[Dantius]

It would usually be a trade between two families of high status, e.g. Scipio Aemilianus was originally the son of Aemilius Paullus (the general who won the battle of Pydna to end the Macedonian empire) but was adopted by the son of Scipio Africanus (the general who had defeated Hannibal). So both families were very prominent.

 

[Notascooby]

Publius Clodius Pulcer got himself adopted into a family of 'lower' status in order to become a Tribune of the Plebs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher

 

[Michael Zwingli]

To enhance the status of the gens adopting, the person adopted would have to be of high status, I think. Can you explain?

Or, of obvious natural (physical, psychological, intellectual,...) abilities which might seem to 'destine him for greatness', to use a pat phrase. In such a case, the individual might be adopted out of a pleb gens into one of the highest patrician status and greatest antiquity. Such an arrangement might benefit both gentes...the plebs might hope that the individual would "remember his roots", so to speak, and do well by them.

 

[κάττα]

One famous example in Greek literature is the case of Oedipus. Though that didn't end well
Does someone know more examples from tragedies or epics?

 

[Michael Zwingli]

One famous example in Greek literature is the case of Oedipus. Though that didn't end well

Ah, yes…certainly! Is it known, though, that Oedipus was an historical figure, as opposed to legendary? This is sometimes hard to determine when dealing with characters from Greek and other (Hebrew…) archaic literatures. For instance, we may believe that Agamemnon was an historical figure, but we can at once believe Achilles to be merely a figure of legend. We know that the “House of Atreus” was a real Hellenic lineage, but I tend to think of Oedipus as part of that lineages legendarium, having no basis in actual historic fact.

 

[Dantius]

We know that the “House of Atreus” was a real Hellenic lineage,

Do we? I know of no solid evidence for any mythological figures being based in identifiable historical individuals. To my knowledge we have no reason to believe that anyone in Greek mythology was historical.

 

[Michael Zwingli]

Do we? I know of no solid evidence for any mythological figures being based in identifiable historical individuals. To my knowledge we have no reason to believe that anyone in Greek mythology was historical.

I did not mean to indicate that the “house of Atreus” was historical, but that it might be or there might have been an historical model. I agree it probably isn’t, but the Greeks, like the Jews, were masterful at intermixing the historical with the fantastic in their ancient narratives. I guess I should have said, “even if we accept the the “House of Atreus” was a real lineage”, but being essentially a lazy, expedient ass, I always take shortcuts in the context of these fora.

 

[Dantius]

There's also, for what it's worth, no real connection between Oedipus and the House of Atreus, if that's what you're implying by "part of that lineage's legendarium" — Oedipus's father (Laius) once fell in love with and kidnapped Agamemnon's uncle (Chrysippus, half-brother of Atreus), and Oedipus's son (Polynices) gathered an army against Thebes, some of whom (e.g. Tydeus, Capaneus, Mecisteus) sent children (e.g. Diomedes, Sthenelus, Euryalus) to Troy under Agamemnon, but those are the closest relationships between them that I can think of.

 

[Michael Zwingli]

There's also, for what it's worth, no real connection between Oedipus and the House of Atreus, if that's what you're implying by "part of that lineage's legendarium" — Oedipus's father (Laius) once fell in love with and kidnapped Agamemnon's uncle (Chrysippus, half-brother of Atreus), and Oedipus's son (Polynices) gathered an army against Thebes, some of whom (e.g. Tydeus, Capaneus, Mecisteus) sent children (e.g. Diomedes, Sthenelus, Euryalus) to Troy under Agamemnon, but those are the closest relationships between them that I can think of.

I must be confusing legends, thinking that it was Oedipus’ sin that put the curse on the Atreids. Now, I want to look it up, but tomorrow as I just laid down to sleep.

 

[κάττα]

Ah, yes…certainly! Is it known, though, that Oedipus was an historical figure, as opposed to legendary? This is sometimes hard to determine when dealing with characters from Greek and other (Hebrew…) archaic literatures. For instance, we may believe that Agamemnon was an historical figure, but we can at once believe Achilles to be merely a figure of legend. We know that the “House of Atreus” was a real Hellenic lineage, but I tend to think of Oedipus as part of that lineages legendarium, having no basis in actual historic fact.

Fiction usually doesn't change the most basic elements of society. When it does, then the whole story is about that change, like Lysistrata.